Jayaram Nayak vs Balaram Swain And Others

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

The appellant in the present writ appeal has put to challenge an order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.31472 of 2023.

The short facts of the case are that the appellant had contested the election for the post of Sarpanch of Pailipada Gram Panchayat and he was the returned candidate. The election result was declared on 02.03.2022.

The Odisha Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 provides for filing of an election petition in case of an election dispute with the stipulation that such petition could be filed within 15 days from the date of election. There is also a provision under the second proviso to Section 31 of the Act for condonation of delay. The said proviso under Section 31 of the Act states that “if an election petitioner satisfies the concerned Civil Judge (Junior Division) that sufficient cause existed for the failure to present the petition within the period aforesaid, the Civil Judge (Junior Division) may in his discretion condone such failure”.

The unsuccessful candidate, i.e., Balaram Swain (respondent no.1) filed an election petition registered as Election Petition No.4 of 2022 on 04.04.2022 with an application for condonation of delay, there being delay of 17 days in filing the election petition. The said delay came to be condoned by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) by an order dated 14.09.2023. Such order condoning the delay became the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(C) No.31472 of 2023 at the instance of the appellant. The said writ petition has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 08.01.2024.

Mr. Milan Kanungo, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that the plea which was taken by the respondent no.1 for condonation of delay was factually incorrect and thus the delay has been wrongly condoned by the Election Tribunal, i.e. the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) which ought to have been interfered with in the writ petition by the learned Single Judge. He has also argued that the learned trial Court ought to have considered that the respondent no.1 was required to explain every single day delay, while considering the application for condonation of delay.

We have carefully perused the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the other materials available on record and we have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. We are of the considered view that keeping in mind the period of delay, exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere.

We do not find any merit in this writ appeal. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.

...……………………………